[Onside] A player returning from beyond the goal line and the decision to allow the goal

There are two points to consider in this scene. ① Was it an offence for Iwata's No. 4, who scored, to have gone off the field of play? ② Was No. 4, who came back onto the field and shot, offside? First, going off the field. Entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission, or deliberately leaving the field of play, is a cautionable offence. However, the Laws of the Game state that a player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence. The footage shows that No. 4 went off the field as part of the flow of play, so this was not an offence. Next, offside. During the scramble in front of goal, at the moment an Iwata player last touched the ball, Iwata's No. 4 had crossed the goal line and was off the field, and also appears to have been ahead of the two Fujieda MYFC defending players near the goal line. The key point here is how the position of a player returning from off the field is treated. For the purposes of offside, an attacking player who re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play is considered to be positioned on the goal line. Looking at the Fujieda players' positions at the moment the Iwata player touched the ball, the goalkeeper was the player nearest to the goal line, and the second-last opponent appears to have been Fujieda's No. 2. This is an inference from the footage, but No. 2's left foot appears to be on the goal line. In other words, the second-last opponent, who sets the offside line, was on the goal line, and Iwata's No. 4 was also on the goal line. Because the offside line and the attacking player's position coincided on the goal line, the player was onside. This is a complex incident with many aspects to consider, but set against the Laws of the Game, going off the field was not an offence, and allowing the goal as onside was probably the correct decision. Please note that this explanation is the author's own inference based only on the footage, and it is not known whether the actual positions and the basis for the decision were as described here.